UNITED STATES v. BERRY (2019)

[Unpublished]

Jerry Berry directly appeals after he conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 188 months in prison. His guilty plea was conditioned upon his right to appeal the denial of his earlier motion to suppress the firearm underlying the charge. On appeal, Berry argues that the district court ¹ based its denial of his suppression motion on clearly erroneous findings.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its relevant findings. See United States v. Bay, 662 F.3d 1033, 1035 (8th Cir. 2011) (when reviewing denial of motion to suppress, this court reviews questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear error; denial of motion to suppress will be affirmed unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or based on a clear mistake; factfinder’s choice between two permissible views of evidence cannot be clearly erroneous); see also United States v. Wright, 739 F.3d 1160, 1166-67 (8th Cir. 2014) (district court’s findings regarding witness credibility deserve great deference and are virtually unreviewable; district court’s decision to credit witness’s testimony can almost never be clear error unless it is contradicted by extrinsic evidence or is so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that no reasonable factfinder would credit it). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

PER CURIAM.